Jean Pisani-Ferry, a professor at the Hertie School of Governance (Berlin) and Sciences Po (Paris), holds the Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa chair at the European University Institute and is a senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank.

The Irish border issue is fundamental, and any discussions about future relations won't get around it. A customs union is the only way to keep it open, and pretty much every UK politican has ruled that out; so the EU is right; there is no point in talking about future relations as long as there is no willingness on the UK side to resolve that issue first.

The EU actually made a major concession in the WA when they agreed to extend the customs union to the whole UK, not just NI, in the backstop, because it amounts to dividing the 4 freedoms. The UK would no longer need to allow freedom of movement, not pay into many EU funds anymore, and be free to define its own laws in everything not related to the CU, while still having unfettered access to the Single Market. A situation many countries would give an arm and a leg for, and which several member states actually see as unfair advantage, and that alone is reason enough why the EU would not want to keep this up indefinitely. The fact that Brexiteers are too stupid to see that isn't surprising at this point, of course, but it seems they're not the only ones.

I have to say I really don't agree with much the author has to say. I would second what one commentator here stated: May's responsibility was to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. I would actually go further and state that her sole responsibility was to prepare for a no-deal Brexit and only after sufficient planning for no-deal was reasonably complete should she have spent any resources on negotiations with the EU for a deal. Not only was it the responsible thing for her to do, but given that she wanted a negotiated deal for a "softer" Brexit, she needed to give the EU a reason to negotiate with her. This was even more important since the leader of the EU and his chief negotiator both stated their purpose was not to negotiate, but to punish the UK. This is what both Trump and Boris Johnson pointed out, and she still does not seem to have absorbed.

Jean Pisani-Ferry believes the EU must agree to renegotiate Theresa May’s Brexit deal and find a compromise in order to ward off a “disastrous” no-deal scenario. Earlier this week she has “successfully rallied her camp around an amendment” that gives her a “mandate” to go back to Brussels and negotiate “alternative arrangements” for the Irish backstop. Now it is the EU’s turn to give ground on the issue.The author says the EU has showed “a remarkable lack of strategic perspective, focusing wholly on rules and processes instead of results.” While it is comprehensible to reject any “à la carte solutions” that favour the UK, as this would only “whet the appetites” of other Euroskeptic governments, there is no “excuse” for their “failure to develop a strategy for structuring the future UK-EU relationship.” May’s Brexit deal aims to avert a no-deal departure, while trying to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. On January 16 the British parliament rejected overwhelmingly May’s withdrawal agreement. Tory MP, Graham Brady suggested the backstop should be replaced by “alternative arrangements” that could get the Brexit deal passed by MPs. While it is important to address MPs’ concerns on the backstop, May is unlikely to budge on her Brexit “red lines”, hoping to place a heavy burden on Brussels to yield. Yet Ireland and the EU are reluctant to renegotiate. The Britons say EU leaders do not want the UK to leave without a deal, and they believe that a no-deal Brexit would not be in anyone’s interests. However, the deal that had been approved by the EU, has been rejected by British MPs. If ever the UK seeks to avoid a no-deal scenario, surely they should be allowed to make some changes in order to win parliamentary support. In order to avert a potential standoff between the EU and the UK, Brussels should – in theory – not insist on the role of the backstop, which would keep Northern Ireland in alignment with the Irish Republic to avoid a hard border if there is no permanent deal or other arrangement in place. In the absence of a new agreement on the backstop, May will be left having to potentially put her deal to MPs again, risking another humiliating defeat.The author sees “three” options and MPs will have to decide “whether to let the UK choose between the existing agreement and no deal, between no deal and a second referendum, or between no deal and a revised exit agreement.” He says the third option would be the “best way forward.” He dismisses the idea of a second referendum, fearing a narrow win for Remainers would only aggravate the already deep paralysis. While the EU “should stand firm on principles,” and consider “either a softening of the negotiated deal or a short deadline extension for talks about the future, if there is a bipartisan appetite for it”, Dublin has a say in this important issue as well. Deputy prime ministr, Simon Coveney said it was an “extraordinary situation” to see May negotiate a deal in good faith and then try to renege on it. The general mood in Ireland is that one would not be beaten into accepting wishful thinking as a replacement to the Irish border backstop. Coveney expressed deep frustration over May’s U-turn in the face of pressure from hard Brexiters wanting to reintroduce border control. His anger was justified, after all Ireland had invested much time and political capital to help her win over EU colleagues in the negotiations to get her version of the backstop over the line, which involved a UK-wide customs arrangement, something Brussels was implacably opposed to until the last moment in negotiations. They have – rightly – no appetite to renegotiate the same issue.

I partly understand sentiments of Labour, Conservatives and Liberals on Brexit Deal, because pm May is bullheaded and did not understand his obligation to first negotiate on Brexit deal with parties and with caucuses of parties. The Brittish parties i.e Labour and Conservatives are in chaotic situation. They are scattered like a herd of crows. For May it would have been easier to aggregate like minded politician in different parties to form working majority to implement negotiations with the EU.

But she just started the negotiations with insexperient, amateurish team. She got the deal but she had not well informed majority in Parliament to get the deal trough.

When the Brexit deal was rejected, May’s chances are now non-existent.

I think that anyone in any EU-country are astonished by the incompetence of Brittish politicians. The MPs totally and coldheartedly ignored the fact that there are no other deals to come. After all they are risking future of Britain with hard brexit to come.

My children's secondary school band teacher put it best, "Choices have consequences."

The EU did not choose to leave the UK, the UK chose to leave the EU. The EU will continue with or without the UK, with or without trade agreements immediately in place.

The EU had a duty internally to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, in reality, the response they should have been working towards the entire time. If prepared for a no-deal Brexit, then any supply chain disruptions would have been addressed and the UK could sink or swim on their own, based on their own choice.

But to given the UK another chance (Option 3) is to coddle your toddler who is having a fit. Nothing will be learned.

Yes, an extension for the purpose of a substantive discussion within the UK would be wise. The alternative could really be no-deal.

Incidentally, this line caught my attention: "Whatever position it takes, will determine the binary question that the British must ultimately answer" - But isn't an oversimplified *binary* choice precisely the reason for the current predicament? A ranked choice / preference voting format for votes on the issue seems advisable.

Let's look at all three alternatives briefly. First, the no deal. The hard Brexiteers are pushing this as the latest iteration of their agenda, as Brexit was never a clear plan but kept changing over the last 20-25 years. Rigid ideological dogmatism based on libertarian, radical neoliberal economic ideas and a firm belief in the UK's primary attachment to the Anglosphere motivated these people since the days of Margaret Thatcher and her booting out of power. They built a stable coalition around their platform, co-opting English nationalists, far-right radicals, middle-class pensioners with cultural grievances and working class voters disadvantaged by the low-wage economy they promoted from the 1980s onwards. The Brexiteers have succeeded in halting the UK's further integration into the EU, sabotaged numerous EU policies, asked for, obtained and won the referendum through the broad coalition of voters they put together as well as the support from the majority of the newspapers. Now they want a no deal Brexit and they will not give up until they get it. Anything short of that will be rejected, labelled as betrayal and new battles will be fought to achieve a complete separation from the EU. A deal (any deal, with or without the backstop) will not be good enough and the next elections will be fought on repelling any agreement with the EU.

To a large extent, this group has become prisoner of its ideology, they don't really stand for anything else, plus there is no other way of holding together their voters, except the anti-EU phobia. Especially that in the eyes of the liberal/progressive voters, the Brexiters have now assumed unashamedly the reactionary nationalism, xenophobia and racism of the fringes. They are winning, they can't really turn back as they have alienated about half the population, so they must maintain the momentum and push for more and more radical policies on Brexit.

Labour is also trapped, partially by a degree of opportunism (a terrible Brexit will sink the Conservatives) but also by the dilemma of how to recuperate the working class vote from the Brexit coalition and how to deal with the anti-immigration, racist and xenophobic attitudes of this segment of the population. So the easiest option is to do nothing. Theresa May is now desperately trying to put the blame on the EU for the failure of her strategies, which will put the EU in a difficult position as any concessions to May will be further appeasement to the Brexiteers. But whatever would happen, the Brexit side will always blame the EU for any current or future problem.

A second referendum: currently there is no chance of this being a serious option as neither of the main parties could support it without risking a split, which is what both May and Corbyn want to avoid. Sadly, the opinion polls are not very encouraging so neither of them has any incentive to push ahead with the referendum. On top of that, May doesn't really believe in anything (despite being portrayed as a soft Remainer) and Corbyn is a lifelong Eurosceptic.

A revised deal: very hard to see what could be offered by the EU that would help make it palatable for about 120 MP who last time rejected it. Minor adjustments could sway a few, plus there are about 10-15 Labour hardcore Brexiteers, but that would still not be enough. Major concessions would be needed, but then the EU's position is likely to be undermined and it would have been an act of appeasement of the nationalist, populist Brexiteers. A cross party agreement to pass a compromise deal would also lead to the fracture of both Conservative and Labour parties. Corbyn, as the most radical socialist Labour leader is unlikely to be able to help one of the most right wing Conservative governments responsible not only for Brexit, but the austerity policies preceding it. So it is a bit unfair to expect the EU to move and think about the future in this situation. The interests of the Brexiteers are so divergent that it is unlikely to see any convergence now or in the future (at least not in my lifetime). The silver lining in all this might be that the no deal departure of the UK is going to take place during the EU elections. Hopefully, that will demonstrate the value of EU membership to many voters in other countries.

The mandate, by vote, by the people of UK needs to be respected. If this vote is ignored, then UK enters the same arena as all other failed states globally. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last. Whatever, the outcome, the vote is what needs to be respected.

Presently, the debate is really a debate of specific power groups to maneuver the mandate by vote to be more palatable for any consequence to them, and the groups that they represent.

That maneuvering is a TOTAL DISREGARD of the publicly, accounted vote. That maneuvering would be another step in the process to devolve not only the social contract of the UK, but the EU. The social contracts either mean something, or they don't.

The whole parody right now is only to nullify the vote.

Whatever the outcome, positive or negative, there comes a point-in-time, that the mandated vote is acknowledged as the will of a people, or in fact, the acknowledgement is that by maneuvering by subgroups, that mandated vote is meaningless.

Presently, globally, special interests are proving that public mandated votes, and ANY subsequent social contract is in fact, absolutely meaningless.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

PS OnPoint

The Mueller report in America, along with reports of interference in this week’s European Parliament election, has laid bare the lengths to which Russia will go to undermine Western democracies. But whether Westerners have fully awoken to the threat is an open question.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.